Noah,
I think the issue of subsetting XML is relevent to groups other than XMLP,
and is thus clearly architectural. XMLP probably doesn't want to own the
solution to the XML-wide issue of subsetting. The TAG document is starting
to make specific mention of usages of XML. Indeed, I'm pretty sure the
original comment was made as a result of a TAG presentation of new material
on usage of XML. I strongly believe that the TAG document should say
something about subsetting of XML, and this would help a fairly wide
audience. IMO, part of the job of an architect is to take a look at a
particular problem/issue, and see whether it has a wider scope. This fits
in my books.
Now it so happens that xmlp has done considerable trailblazing in this area.
I personally think that the subset of XML that is used by XMLP is usable by
a wider audience. I've regularly and enthusiastically supported XML
profiling efforts [1], such as Tim Bray's XML-SW. I guess I look at the
glass half full. This is a good opportunity for the TAG to look at the
issue of how the family of XML specifications fit together, and perhaps do a
bit of refactoring. I also think there's little chance of the text of soap
1.2 spec changing as a result of this discussion.
I turn the question around to you. If there's a process foul, that means
that the TAG can't or shouldn't look at the issue of subsetting/profiling of
XML because 1 spec is after Last Call? I doubt that you think that way.
So my appeal to you Noah, is that you think of this in the context of
benefits to a larger community than just SOAP.
Cheers,
Dave
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2001Dec/0022.html
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 7:59 PM
> To: Paul Grosso
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org; fallside@us.ibm.com
> Subject: Re: SOAP's prohibiting use of XML internal subset
>
>
>
> I'm curious, was this raised as a last call issue for SOAP? I don't
> recall seeing it. The prohibition of internal subsets has,
> as I recall,
> been in every SOAP working draft since day 1, and certainly
> was in the
> last call draft. With respect, from a process point of view,
> I find it
> somewhat unfortunate that this issue is rasied to the TAG before or
> instead of raising it through the normal workgroup feedback
> mechanisms.
>
<snip/>
>
> I don't deny that this is an issue with (at least) two sides,
> but here I
> am concerned mainly about W3C process. I do understand that there is
> potentially an architecture issue here as well, but I would
> think that the
> most useful input to the TAG would come as a summary of
> whatever emerged
> in a discussion between the protocols WG and those who might
> question its
> decisions regarding the internal subset. As far as I know,
> that issue
> wasn't raised and the discussion didn't happen. It is late
> in the SOAP
> review process, but if anything at all is to be done in
> reopenning this
> issue, I think it should start with the protocols workgroup
> and not the
> TAG. Thank you!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
> Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
> 11/25/02 12:50 PM
>
>
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> cc: (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
> Subject: SOAP's prohibiting use of XML internal subset
> Categories:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> One of the design decisions/goals of the XML 1.0 Recommendation [1]
> was to have as few optional features as possible [2]. XML 1.0 allows
> an XML document to have a prolog that includes some declarations in
> what is called the internal subset [3].
>
> An important class of XML documents are those that are
> "standalone" [4].
> In such documents, the only way to provide entity declarations [5] or
> attribute defaults [6] is to put such declarations in the
> internal subset.
>
> It is my understanding that the Last Call draft of SOAP 1.2 [7] makes
> use of an XML format that does not permit any internal subset, despite
> the fact that XML 1.0 does not define such a profile/subset
> of XML. I
> wonder what the definition of such profiles by individual
> specifications
> will do for interoperability.
>
> For a case in point, the XML Core WG has been asked to address the
> issue of how to declare "character entities." Our answer (see [8])
> is that the way to declare such entities in XML is to use the
> internal subset, an integral part of XML 1.0 that must be supported
> by all compliant XML processors. The fact that this solution doesn't
> work for SOAP has not overridden the XML Core WG's reluctance
> to consider
> development and endorsement of new XML syntax to support what
> is already
> supported in XML 1.0. However, we recognize that the current
> situation
> means that the use of entities and attribute defaults is not
> available
> to SOAP users.
>
> Is this an architectural issue that the TAG wishes to address?
>
> I am writing this message in a personal capacity, as I have
> not discussed
> this particular message with the XML Core WG (though at least
> parts of the
>
> issue have been discussed in the WG, and there are clearly
> parts of the
> issue
> that do touch on XML Core WG work).
>
> I would be interested in hearing any comments the TAG might have on
> this situation.
>
> paul
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-origin-goals point 5
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#dt-doctype
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-rmd
> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-entity-decl
> [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-attr-defaults
> [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part0/ and others
> [8] http://www.w3.org/XML/Core/2002/10/charents-20021023
>
>
>
>
>